<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:JunkScience.com Announces Top Ten "Most Embarrassing Moments" of
2004
List Spotlights Dubious Achievements and Irresponsible Claims Made by
Health and Environmental Scientists
WASHINGTON, D.C., (Dec. 1) -- JunkScience.com today announced its list
of the Top Ten Most Embarrassing Moments in Health and Environmental
Science for 2004. The list spotlights individuals and organizations
that -- through exaggerated claims, bad judgment, and/or hidden agendas
-- have most egregiously undermined public confidence in the scientific
community's capacity to conduct sound and unbiased research.
If there were a junk journalism award, I'd give it to this email. There are
not enough details to tell anything, and some of it has nothing to do with
science per se.
Quoted message said:
JunkScience.com's Top Ten "low-lights" for 2004 are:1. In August, Harvard University researcher Dr. Walter Willett
delivered an urgent warning to parents declaring soft drinks harmful to
children. Upon closer inspection, however, the report by Dr.
Willett's research team suppressed some highly contradictory
evidence-- including findings from their own research -- to reach this
far-flung conclusion. Read more...
I could read more if you told me where, but I don't need to read more to
know that soft drinks are harmful to children.
Quoted message said:
2. Leading up to election day, Stanford researcher and TV spokesman,
Dr. Irving Weissman, preyed on the public's trust in his credentials
as he hawked the $3 billion pro-embryonic stem cell research
initiative, known as Proposition 71, to California voters -- without
also disclosing the fact that, as a director and major options holder
in a stem cell research company, he stands to benefit substantially
from the windfall of taxpayer dollars. Read more...
Again, this had nothing to do with junk science. Whether he makes money on
it may have to do with a conflict of interest or ethics, but not with the
validity of the science. In this case, the science hasn't even been done.
The funding from prop 71 was not in effect at the time, so no studies funded
by it could be classified one way or another.
Quoted message said:
3. Anti-obesity crusaders at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, who claimed in March that "obesity kills 400,000
Americans each year," received a long-overdue black eye when
researchers from the National Center for Health Statistics attacked the
oft-quoted estimate as overblown by as much as 200 percent -- revealing
just how the crusaders cooked the books. Read more...
You are saying that two different studies have two different conclusions,
but are not saying why. Furthermore, you are saying that since researchers
from one group attacked a study, it is flawed. Calling something flawed on
that basis alone is junk science.
[snip rest of list]
Quoted message said:10. University of Arkansas researchers attacked the Atkins Diet in
January with a report linking a high-carbohydrate diet with weight
loss, saying it was possible to lose weight without cutting calories
and without exercising. What they didn't reveal, however, was that
the study subjects who lost weight actually ate 400-600 calories per
day less than those who didn't lose weight. Read more at...
I figured I'd keep the last one since it's actually on topic, but you'd have
to give more specifics before I believe it. I don't think anybody is
disputing that Atkins dieters take in fewer calories, but calorie counting
is not the mechanism. Neither is an intentional effort to cut calories.
Therefore, if by "without cutting calories," the authors were referring to a
lack of any attempt to cut calories, I'd agree with the study and disagree
with you.